While the debate over keeping the Internet open and accessible to all is far from over, the FCC has put its energy and that of the Obama administration on the side of consumers, in the most important decision so far for the young administration about this vital new medium.

The bureaucratic wranglings in this policy-making area, involving something called “net neutrality,” can be a little dense. But if you care about making sure the Internet remains fertile and innovative, and that the big telecommunications companies not decide how and what consumers can access online, then it’s important to understand what’s at stake for you and me.

First, let’s examine what actually happened Monday. Julius Genachowski, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, announced the agency would begin the process toward making net neutrality official government policy. Rather than a radical departure, the move would expand and give more legal force to several principles the FCC had previously announced.

Almost as significant, and in a bit of a surprise, he made clear the rules would cover wireless as well as wired networks.

Genachowski nailed the urgency of this issue during a speech Monday explaining the move:

“The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet’s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.”

Back in 2005, critics accused network carriers like Verizon and Comcast of limiting the speeds of bandwidth-intensive applications like video. In addition, they were mapping out plans to charge some companies more to access the Internet at regular speeds.

In the most high-profile test case of net neutrality, last year the FCC ruled that Comcast had illegally placed limits on its broadband customers who were using peer-to-peer services. Comcast is currently appealing the ruling. But this is the sort of activity open Internet advocates and the FCC want to prevent, because it would inevitably limit innovation.

Here’s why. If you had a choice between a large, established Internet company that had deep pockets to pay for higher access, you’d be more likely to use their service over a small startup that might have a more innovative service, but lack the money to pay for the same speeds.

In 2005, the FCC adopted four principles of net neutrality. These principles in essence say that network operators cannot block users from accessing Internet content that is legal and they can’t prevent consumers from attaching most devices such a TiVo or online gaming console to the Internet.

On Monday, Genachowski added two more principles. First, network providers can’t discriminate against certain types of Internet traffic. And second, they have to be transparent in how they manage their networks.

Even more profound, and courageous, is the decision to extend these rules to wireless networks. With mobile computing and smart phones emerging as one of the most profound innovations of our generation, it’s essential that these networks be kept open so that this market can continue to flourish.

The policy announcement was hardly a surprise given President Barack Obama’s support for the cause during the campaign. And the rule making process will last for several months, allowing supporters and detractors to weigh in.

So expect fierce and bloody combat before this is over. The carriers have already spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions. And advocates for the policy such as Google will probably spend heavily lobbying in favor. At the same time, Comcast continues to battle in court trying to get a judge to declare that the FCC is exceeding its authority.

All the more reason that Genachowski and the new administration should be applauded for hanging tough and doing the right thing. Future innovators and consumers will be thankful.

More in News

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.